What do you do when your lens is TOO sharp?

uhligfd said:
Only use pinholes; they are never too sharp for my taste/eye. But unfortunately they have no glass, so you cannot dull them with sandpaper if you ever wanted to hide the natural skin.

How about suggesting plastic surgery for the actor's face if you do not like it as it is?

WHAT a PROBLEM!
Click to expand...

Well, the girls are quite sensitive about how they look, and if I don't make them look attractive they get all camera phobic and blame me for taking unflattering photos.

/T
 
Tuolumne said:
Well, the girls are quite sensitive about how they look, and if I don't make them look attractive they get all camera phobic and blame me for taking unflattering photos.

/T
Click to expand...


I was going to make an unsensitive statement about how we cater to these kids and how if they don't like the way they look it's your fault so you have to fix it for them but I decided to filter my thoughts so as not to offend...
I would rather see a true picture of myself and see what I need to work on rather than a lie...
 
nikon_sam said:
I was going to make an unsensitive statement about how we cater to these kids and how if they don't like the way they look it's your fault so you have to fix it for them but I decided to filter my thoughts so as not to offend...
I would rather see a true picture of myself and see what I need to work on rather than a lie...
Click to expand...

At the risk of making a sexist statement, I think all female performers are like this. I'd rather just change the photos than try to change them. :angel:

/T
 
Quote "I was only kidding about sanding the lens. I am not a NUT!"

If you really like the carborundum idea, try it on a cheap or already damaged filter. Don't be a nut!
 
Actually, your original shots are not really all that sharp. The girls are wearing very heavily caked makeup and the direct light shows all their facial blemishes, which are somewhat severe.

Look for a Spiratone Portragon with the appropriate T-mount.
 
Nylon stocking in the front element ought to do the trick. Or a softening filter.

In short, you don't have a problem; your models do. :)
 
There are some freeware stand alone packages especially for this type of application. I am not at my own PC right now and cannot recall the names but a search of "imaging software freeware" will probably turn up some examples on Google. (I think one may be named something like photo or image enhancer / beautifier - try combos of these words in a search.) The ones I have tried work pretty well by reducing blemishes and variations in skin tones without unduly reducing image sharpness - depending on how much you adjust the toggle on the slider bar or whatever. The only issue is that standalone software involves a separate workflow process outside of Photoshop - unless of course you can find a Photoshop plug in that does this task. There may be some plugins if you are willing to pay but I do not recall seeing any free ones. If you are an experienced Photoshop user you can do the same using Layers, a noise filter (like gaussian blur) and various strengths of transparency int he overlay. Personally, perhaps as I am not an expert in PS, I find it much more satisfactory to use a piece of software to do the hard work for me.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Buy a 9cm F4 Elmar. They are cheap. Older 9cm F2 Summicron, fast and big.
Click to expand...

I have these. Don't know why I didn't think to bring them, especially since I was determined to shoot at f4 or slower. But the F2 Summicron makes a Noctilux look small.

/T
 
At one time, Minolta, and probably others, had a soft-focus lens. There was something of a claim that it was more popular in Japan than anywhere else.

Sounds like a diffusion filter might work.

As for that sawing a board too short, there's another version of that. Chefs gradually add salt during the cooking process, on the basis that you can always add more, but you can't take it out.
 
sirius said:
Start working with your aperture wide open.
Click to expand...

I had been doing this, and the photos that worked were great. Unfortunately, because everything is in motion on the stage, many shots were too soft from being out of focus. So, I stopped down. That solved that problem, but then I got all the facial blemishes in focus and so it became, as Roseann Roseanna Dana said," If it's not one thing, it's another."

/T
 
Jupiter-9 ? (85/2)

Sonnar type lenses tend to be softer overall, and a J-9 isn't all that expensive (at least compared to a Summilux). And there are also other Sonnars out there (Canon, Nikkor)...
 
First, I found your picture to be "soft-sharp"--that is, sharp enough, but with a nicely rounded quality that lends itself well to the subjects. To answer the question, my solution was to pick up a Summar, an f/1.5 Summarit, and an uncoated Elmar to experiment with, for times when I want a softer image than my ASPH lenses can produce.

Incidentally, I read that some some motion picture directors have found modern lenses to be too sharp for certain movies that call for a softer look. I think it is a valid point, though I think that softness and glow should be used sparingly, and not allowed to become an end in themselves.
 
Use an Industar-22 collapsible lens. Push the lens in about a couple of mm from fully extended. Perfect Leica glow, plus added portrait softness.

No sandpaper needed.
 
You could try shooting b&w in lighting/staging you can't control, with a light green filter and reserve color for shots you set-up yourself. Explain to the girls that the stage lighting was bad and you wanted to work in a 'classic' style, they looked so good!

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom